Mr. Kim’s s youngest son, Kim Jong-un, was promoted on Sept. 28 to the rank of four-star general, a prerequisite for his ascendancy to power. The elder Mr. Kim, who is said to be in poor health after apparently suffering a stroke in 2008, has hurried the succession of his son in recent weeks.

Kim had been treated for "cardiac and cerebrovascular diseases for a long period." He suffered a heart attack on Saturday and couldn't be saved despite the use of "every possible first-aid measure," according to the agency.

The fall of the Third Republic was very complex. A France bled white by the first world war was defensive in nature. That's why they built the Maginot Line. France's military was run by old men who didn't understand the technology of modern war and was as well riven with right-wingers who were sympatico to Nazis. There's a lot more to the story of the 'phony war' but your reference to WWII France doesn't apply nor does any other WWII story apply.

In WWII we were dealing with world class industrial powers. Today we're dealing with nations that lack the basic heavy industry needed to wage war against a powerful industrial state. You're losing sleep over weaklings or promoting a ruinous nationalist agenda.

Kinda reminds me of our blooming PC causing lack of definitive responses to the WOT and our failure to see it as both an asymmetrical war and what is now an asymmetrical clash of cultures.

BTW - A discussion over this doesn't mean that either side is "losing sleep." Remarks like that tell me that since you don't have a winning position you are seeking to trivialize my position. Hardly the way to change minds.

The thing you have to realize is that Europe had just finished what was the most destructive war known to Europe. None of the major European powers expected WWI to be as long and destructive as it was. That is why England and France wanted to avoid war at all cost. That is why they believed that Hitler did not want to have a war. The fact that Hitler actually wanted a war (contrary to what a few historians feel) was realized to late by England and France. While England and France did not like Hitler, they believed he was at worst a temporary problem.

What you also have to realize is that France had problems of their own. WWI had decimated their population. Their government was estentially leaderless. They were in no position to wage any kind of conflict. If they knew Hitler wanted war, they might of acted different.

Also, you have to realize that from England and France's POV, Germany's demand were not totally unreasonable. Many felt that Germany was punished to much after WWI and felt that some give was in order. They felt that giving in to some demands that were not out of line made sense.

Did the leaders of England and France make mistakes with respect to Hitler. Yes. BUt many of those mistakes reguire the use of hindsight which is always 20-20.

In November 2010, the North Koreans showed a visiting American scientist from Stanford University, Siegfried Hecker, an apparently working uranium enrichment plant that the country had been building for years, and that the C.I.A. had missed, though the agency had been right about other secret facilities. The plant gave North Korea a new way to produce nuclear weapons, even as his people fell into another food shortage.

The same year, the North made two attacks against the South Korean military, sinking a ship and later shelling an island near Northern waters. The episodes caused the United States and South Korea to conduct new joint exercises, even while the Chinese, apparently fearing a complete collapse of the North Korean regime, increased its economic aid.

And don't think with the death of King Jung-Il, that the folks making the decisions aren't at least a little bit concerned and the world will have to wait and see what China does.

They may not strike Portland, but to dismiss them as little or no threat is naive.

was free of hyper-nationalistic tribalists and so-called "conservatives" embittered because they can't make time, space, and the pursuit of enlightenment stop in their tracks, the world would be a better place.

as usual, you are 100% wrong. something to be said for that level of consistency. i'm not sure what, but something.

all of the items you note were failures by US intelligence agencies (military & civilian), not the american public. the information was out there, but they either failed to grasp its significance, or chose to ignore it.

as far as the soviet union is concerned, show me where either the federal gov't, or even a simple majority of the citizenry openly declared that they believed the USSR couldn't directly harm the US.

perhaps you missed this little thing called "the cold war", between 1945-1989? it was all the rage, made the papers and tv. heck, there were even books and movies using it as a plot line.

as usual, you are 100% wrong. something to be said for that level of consistency. i'm not sure what, but something.

So say you?

all of the items you note were failures by US intelligence agencies (military & civilian), not the american public. the information was out there, but they either failed to grasp its significance, or chose to ignore it.

And your point is what? Read carefully and you will see that I was pointing out the various attacks that had been ignored/not really paid attention to, etc. I made no call as to who was at fault.

as far as the soviet union is concerned, show me where either the federal gov't, or even a simple majority of the citizenry openly declared that they believed the USSR couldn't directly harm the US.

Well, everyone knew Japan was a threat. Same with the USSR. Same with fundamentalists in Iran (it's why we funded the Shah's military). And with overseas venues visited by uniformed members of the armed forces. The WTC, too, was well known as a target. You can't prevent every single attack, and we haven't. Sometimes you get the timing wrong, sometimes you get the place wrong. But the threats absolutely were known and respected as threats.

So, Jim is just plain wrong on the basic facts of his snark.

It's also a fact that we have a military industrial complex and a vast series of intelligence agencies to protect us from these threats. I mean, for all the negatives, that's their job. So sitting around as civilians worrying about all these threats and demanding that everyone else worry about them too is useless at best, and at worst is some sort of weird 24 playacting for those without enough drama in their lives. It's just how the Republicans get people to vote for them, scare people into thinking that constant anxiety is equivalent to fighting.

Yeah, well, the Bush administration really screwed up on 9/11, I'll give you that. But overall, the plot was designed to (absolutely no pun intended) fly under the radar. We generally knew about the plan to fly planes into buildings and/or use them as weapons. It was an issue of date and time and place -- we didn't know exactly.

Of course we need oversight, both to spur US action when necessary and prevent it when unnecessary. Constant fear of every .0000001% chance event isn't any sort of useful oversight. It's adrenal gland malfunction.

As for trivializing things, you're the one that makes "jokes", and then when called on those "jokes", retreats from your narrow point (where your wrong) into broad straw man arguments. I've answered your points, not trivialized them -- that said points were trivial themselves is hardly my problem.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

Joke? No. I was pointing out that his older sons were passed by for one he felt would reflect what he wanted done.

And N Korea under its present leadership is an enemy and recognizing that is not being fearful, etc. anymore than knowing cancer is deadly and we should be aware of the warning signs.

Just rational self interest, Addison. No big deal... except, apparently, to various folks around here.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

"

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda."

Oh, wait ... he was already asked about this statement during the 9-11 Commission hearings:

Clarke was asked about his "500% increase statement" at the 9/11 hearings. He said: "I was asked to make that case to the press. I was a special assistant to the President, and I made the case I was asked to make... I was asked to highlight the positive aspects of what the administration had done and to minimize the negative aspects of what the administration had done."

IOW - he was spinning in his capacity as a special assistant to Bush. Guess that explains all the "uh"s in his statement - trying to keep a straight face.

He was spinning ... the difference being that he was making statements (under oath) that were technically accurate, but designed to put a "best face" on Bush's anti-terrorism efforts. You need to look at the words used (and not used) to see if there's much (if anything) you can tell from his statement:

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy

See the emphasis (and hesitation) on when it was decided ("First week in February", "in the Spring")? He was trying to suggest they immediately decided to add to the Clinton-admin policies.

... decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

He's not saying they increased the budget dedicated to Al Qaeda - or even covert ops in general - by five-fold. He's saying they "decided in principle" to increase CIA resources in general, then cites covert ops and Al Quaeda ops as examples of things the resources would (presumably) be used for. This does not mean that CIA resources actually were increased five-fold between the Spring and 9-11. He does not indicate during what period this "five-fold" increase would take place (1 year, 5 years, 10 years?), or how much (if any) was actually implemented prior to 9-11. He does not indicate how much of it was used for anti-terrorism issues or Al Qaeda efforts, as opposed to the decision "in principle" to increase "CIA resources" in general. So while I highly doubt he was "lying" in his testimony, his statements were broad and vague enough to make it sound like the Bush administration was increasing its efforts against Al Quaeda, without actually saying much of anything at all - other than a decision "in principle" to increase CIA resources in general.

Not to mention the fact that, if counter-terrorism efforts were such a high priority in the pre-9/11 Bush administration, why would they downgrade the position of National Coordinator for Counterterrorism? Rather than the NCC's memos going directly to the President, they had to pass though a chain of command of National Security Advisor Rice and her deputy Stephen Hadley, who bounced every one of them back.

OTOH - Clarke was pretty clear in his assessment of the Bush/Al Quaeda efforts when he was no longer Bush's Special Assistant:

Clarke charged that before and during the 9/11 crisis, many in the administration were distracted from efforts against Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda organization by a pre-occupation with Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Clarke had written that on September 12, 2001, President Bush pulled him and a couple of aides aside and "testily" asked him to try to find evidence that Saddam was connected to the terrorist attacks. In response he wrote a report stating there was no evidence of Iraqi involvement and got it signed by all relevant agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the CIA. The paper was quickly returned by a deputy with a note saying "Please update and resubmit"...

Clarke made the statement: "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al-Qaeda, ever."
Clarke had made clear in his book that this conclusion was understood by the intelligence community at the time of 9/11 and the ensuing months, but top Bush administration officials were pre-occupied with finding a link between Iraq and 9/11 in the months that followed the attack, and thus, Clarke argued, the Iraq war distracted attention and resources from the war in Afghanistan and hunt for Osama bin Laden

BTW - Clarke's account of the post-9/11 period was corroborated by Marine Lieutenant General Greg Newbold, former director of operations on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and by Army General John Batiste, former commander of the First Infantry Division, who in 2001 and 2002 had been the Senior Military Advisor to Wolfowitz.

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

snip

And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.

"Spinning" is putting a "best face" on something while remaining technically accurate. "Lying" is deliberately presenting a false statement as true. Clark could be charged with a felony for doing the latter, but charged with nothing for doing the former.

I forgot to lock up the house last night before I went to bed. And I often leave the car unlocked too. I hope the North Koreans don't nuke me. And believe you me, I'm a lot closer target than most of ya -- I live in Seattle! (gulp!)

sound like you live in constant fear with your yammering about this country and that country. That being said, a Cold War mentality that people like you continue to have long after the Cold War is over do more harm than good. Being willing to bankrupt the country and send soldiers off on a fool's errand of trying to control the world has pretty much been shown to be a failure when dealing with today's problems like terrorism.

grief. ROTFLMAO. You are just simply hysterical. Kill millions of people? I guess it's okay if WE kill millions of people. Right? It's the "american exceptional-ism" crap. Well, That's completely irrational and not based on anything except some sort of fantasy. There are wars that are worth fighting and there are wars that are not but apparently to you all wars are worthwhile even if the outcome is abysmal.

You are failing to deal with the reality of the fact that Vietnam was NEVER a winnable war and instead of accepting that fact you continue to blame someone else for that problem. The problem was it was a guerrilla war and they are almost never won by the invading force. We could still be there and the results would be the same. Just like when Iraq implodes you will see how bad this policy has been.

Wait, what are we denying again? Because no one denies that "we have enemies".

But you made a very specific (country and person) statement, not a general statement about enemies. That was what people were reacting, too -- you know all this of course, and are just playing games as per usual.

Frankly, I think most people thought you were joking with your "Nuke Portland" talk. But apparently you were serious or something akin to serious?

So since you apparently want to discuss this issue, can you provide a scrap of evidence relating to the Kim brothers and their plans to attack any city at all with nuclear weapons?

That North Korea would choose to nuke Portland, Oregon first instead of Tokyo.

That North Korea would happily nuke Portland, Oregon, even though they haven't during the past 16 years of nuke-related WMD capability (whether reliable nuclear fission weaponry or "merely" dirty bombs).

That if North Korea nuked Portland Oregon we would send Carter over to apologize.

I think it's the last one that's the dumbest, if only because of the hack inclusion of Carter as some sort of lazy touchstone. Close race though. Nailbiter.

I mean, you'd be shocked if Mexico put poison into packs of dehydrated black beans in order to empty the SW US of people so they could invade -- you'd be MORE than shocked. Better invade Mexico, or at least have some airstrikes -- they have the beans and the poison and you'd be shocked, after all!

Just trying to point out how silly it is for someone to think that all we have to do is just love everybody and they will love us.

Fine.

But no one thinks that.

No one on this site thinks we should, "all we have to do is just love everybody and they will love us". No one is for zeroing out the defense/intelligence budgets or not approaching many global problems with military force.

You're ranting to a straw man you created so you could rant.

And that's the dumb game you're playing. Thanks for just coming out and making the whole situation obvious yourself.

Will never attain a position of being a healthy, functioning country capable of competing with the world's family of nations as long as Nepotism is the path they've chosen to follow. Whether it's a country, or a business, nepotism is the ticking, self inflicted time bomb guaranteeing a sub-par, or completely destructive, future.

There are enough obstacles out there for a country or business to contend with without handicapping itself with the debilitating yoke of nepotism.

My sense of NK is that Jong-un will have to assert himself pretty heavily in order to actually have the necessary power to rule. Actually, I'd think whoever ends up in power will need to assert themselves heavily...

According to Kim Jong Il's former personal chef, Kim Jong-un was born in 1983 or 1984 to Kim's third wife, Ko Hyong-hui, and is allegedly his father's favorite son. Unlike his brother Kim Jong-chol, Kim Jong-un has a more forthright character and, some sources say, has exhibited leadership skills. He is rumored to have studied at the International School of Berne in Guemligen, Switzerland. Upon returning to North Korea sometime after 2000, his studies continued, most likely at Kim Il Sung Military University. There are varying reports that he speaks German, French, and English.

COMMENTS (0)
SHARE:
Twitter

Reddit

Buzz

More... Kim Jong-un's career background has been just as opaque. In 2004, reports began to surface that he and brother Kim Jong-chol were accompanying their father on inspections of military installations. In 2007, a flurry of reports emerged placing the third son in either the Korean Workers' Party's (KWP's) powerful Organization Guidance Department, where Kim Jong Il began his career in 1964, or the Korean People's Army's influential General Political Bureau. Both of these bodies are charged with surveillance and monitoring of the regime's powerful party, military, and security bodies.

There are also reports that Kim Jong-un may share some of the ailments of his father, such as diabetes, and might have been in a car accident last year [2008]. Therefore, his health is in question.

His father began grooming him for the job only three years ago after suffering a stroke. In contrast, Kim Jong Il himself was groomed over a period of 14 years before taking the reins from his father, Kim Il Sung, in 1994.

Though Kim Jong Un can boast an array of titles, it's unclear whether he actually has any decision-making authority.

"I think it's premature to conclude that Kim Jong Un will make all the shots," said Han Park, director of the Center for the Study of Global Issues at the University of Georgia.

"Kim Jong Un is not going to be expected, nor is he qualified, to make tough decisions. But the party system is there, and the decision-making mechanism that has been established by Kim Jong Il will continue. And therefore the succession process -- even in intermediate terms -- should be smooth," Park said.

It is likely that Kim Jong Un's uncle, Jang Song Thaek, will rule behind the scenes as Kim Jong Un trains on the job, the global intelligence firm Stratfor said.